EU prior rights

[bb99]

I am toying with the idea of attending and just sitting in the corner dressed as Batman.

 

[rob]

I am toying with the idea of attending and just sitting in the corner dressed as Batman.

Domainers For Justice campaign.

I just dont like the thought of you chained to the reception desk in just your speedos and a cape

 

[olebean]

Domainers For Justice campaign.

I just dont like the thought of you chained to the reception desk in just your speedos and a cape

Hoey

Batman, speedos a cape chains and that imagine

 

[gordon]

If you disagree with me then you are disagreeing with the British Government and the European Commission (i.e. DTI and the EU competition authorities). They regarded Nominet as a natural monopoly as far back as 1999 and IMO they still do. However; and for the sake of clarity; IMO there is nothing inappropriate about being a natural monopoly as long as you do not abuse the power of your unique position in the marketplace.

If you are referring to issue 5 of Nominet news I cannot see where it says the government defined Nominet as a natural monopoly. If I have missed something please point it out to me. It merely says the UK and EU governments explained what criteria they used to monitor natural monopolies was. Even if a company has a unique position it is still sensible to have understood what the government would want you to act like if you did have a true monopoly.

but this doesn't actually matter in the scheme of things and it doesn't make Nominet a monopoly in the anti-competition sense.

Absolutely, monopolies are perfectly legal it is only abuse of a monopoly position that is illegal.

So I don't know why you're disagreeing.

Because I don't think that is what the document you referenced actually said.

Gordon

 

[Whois-Search]

What will happen with ENUM if Nominet gets it ?

http://ispcolumn.isoc.org/2003-07/enum.html

"On the other hand the competitive provision proponents of multiple DNS root domains argue that a government-sanctioned monopoly is still a monopoly, and this monopoly situation will likely lead to high service prices for ENUM services. This escalated pricing structure would, in turn, seriously hamper the uptake of ENUM services."

 

[Beasty]

are you after a contract or something Beasty?

What's your motive (really!)

-aqls-

:lol: :lol: :lol: No - I have no desire (nor I suspect suitability) to bid for any Nominet contracts.

My motivation for commenting on the DRS and Nominet's structure is not direct personal gain or wealth - I just want things to be fairer and more open than they currently are.

But I should probably make clear that I think that there are a lot of good points about Nominet - as JAC rightly points out it's a much better option than ICANN/Verisign. The nature of debate on this board tends to polarise expressions of opinion.

 

[Jac]

My motivation for commenting on the DRS and Nominet's structure is not direct personal gain or wealth - I just want things to be fairer and more open than they currently are.

But I should probably make clear that I think that there are a lot of good points about Nominet - as JAC rightly points out it's a much better option than ICANN/Verisign. The nature of debate on this board tends to polarise expressions of opinion.

Beasty

For what it's worth, I am also interested in things being fairer and as open and transparent as possible. I do not personally believe you can run a community led registry without being fair and transparent. I like to believe Nominet feel the same and perhaps you can judge for yourself on the 22nd June. I look forward to meeting you and having a constructive debate. Controversial questions are most welcome.

Regards
James Conaghan
[PAB Member]

 

[olebean]

Beasty

For what it's worth, I am also interested in things being fairer and as open and transparent as possible. I do not personally believe you can run a community led registry without being fair and transparent. I like to believe Nominet feel the same and perhaps you can judge for yourself on the 22nd June. I look forward to meeting you and having a constructive debate. Controversial questions are most welcome.

Regards
James Conaghan
[PAB Member]

Is beasty coming on the 22nd?

 

[Jac]

Non sequitur

If you are referring to issue 5 of Nominet news I cannot see where it says the government defined Nominet as a natural monopoly. If I have missed something please point it out to me. It merely says the UK and EU governments explained what criteria they used to monitor natural monopolies was. Even if a company has a unique position it is still sensible to have understood what the government would want you to act like if you did have a true monopoly.
<SNIP>
Because I don't think that is what the document you referenced actually said.

Gordon,

If you are the Nominet non-executive I think you are (you do not quote your surname) then I do not understand why you are being so illogical. Not like you!

It is a complete non sequitur to suggest that the DTI would discuss and go to the trouble of explaining the criteria used to 'monitor a natural monopoly' if they did not think this was the case with Nominet. Conversely, why would the founding Chairman Willie Black bring it up in the first place? Willie always knew this was the tightrope Nominet would walk and whatever else, IMO, he acted prudently in consulting with Government from Day 1.

I have already stated there is nothing inappropriate in being a 'natural' monoply and we have both agreed it is not illegal to be such; so, with respect, I think you are just arguing semantics. For the sake of clarity, what I have said is not to the detriment of Nominet in any way; indeed; I think it is to Nominet's credit that they reach out to the community as they do, and with the new impetus towards greater communication and corporate responsibility, I believe we may soon see the most open and transparent registry on the planet. I personally think that's a worthy objective.

So can we please dispense with the politicking and splitting of hairs?


Regards
James Conaghan

 

[Jac]

Is beasty coming on the 22nd?

Beasty has confirmed he will be coming. So has Whois-Search, sneezycheese, Lee Grandin and yourself; if you're still coming?

PS: I thought you said you'd get in touch with the others and put together an agenda? (i.e. list of questions.)

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[olebean]

Beasty has confirmed he will be coming. So has Whois-Search, sneezycheese, Lee Grandin and yourself; if you're still coming?

PS: I thought you said you'd get in touch with the others and put together an agenda? (i.e. list of questions.)

Regards
James Conaghan

Jac

I said I would contact the others to discuss it, we are discussing it.... I didn't suggest I would provide a list of questions, as you know I am against it. I felt if any of the others wished to divulge their questions that is up to them.

 

[gordon]

So can we please dispense with the politicking and splitting of hairs?

I am neither politicking nor splitting hairs, but giving my opinion on what I believe are the facts. If you disagree then fair enough I accept we disagree.

Gordon

 

[Jac]

Jac

I said I would contact the others to discuss it, we are discussing it.... I didn't suggest I would provide a list of questions, as you know I am against it. I felt if any of the others wished to divulge their questions that is up to them.

olebean

I am not asking you to divulge your questions, just enquiring if you have a planned agenda so there is some structure to the meeting.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[Beasty]

What information did you ask for?

I wanted to know how Nominet came to decide that they wanted the DRS not be an arbitration in their eyes - so that they believe that it is not governed by the Arbitration Act - e.g with an express obligation of fairness. A small amount of info is available from the archives of the consultation - e.g how the indemnity that takes its wording from the Arbitration Act was added following counsel's opinion, so unlike most true "experts" (e.g. expert witnesses) Nominet's panel are protected in the same way that arbiters are from claims in negligence - sort of "have cake and eat it".

Under FOIA for a government agency I could discover much of this - save for those parts covered by legal privelege. So the policy decisions and minutes of meetings etc. would be available.

Why did this concern you?

It troubles me because Nominet has a big wedge of public money that the public (and industry) are obliged to pay (via agents) to register domains. I think that what it does with that "public" money should be subject to the same scrutiny and contral as the money spent by all the other bodies covered by the EU spending rules. So any contracts worth (cumulitively if over a period of time) a touch under €100K should have been opened up to rigorous open tender throughout the EU.

If you are the Gordon on the Nominet board, you already ought to know why this troubles me. Nominet have told me that they do not follow this requirement when awarding contracts.

Nominet don't have a monopoly on a significant market, they compete with many other TLDs.

Nonsense.

Sorry I don't understand, can you explain why taking a service offered by a private company and making a goverment body offer that service instead is not "nationalisation"?

True - I mean bringing it into "national" ownership. However by turning it into a Patent Office style executive agency, it would not be "nationalisation" in the sense of 70s style British Leyland or other "nationalised" industries who then compete in the market. So yes - if one means "owned by the nation" then I do think .uk should be "nationalised".

 

[gordon]

I wanted to know how Nominet came to decide that they wanted the DRS not be an arbitration in their eyes - so that they believe that it is not governed by the Arbitration Act - e.g with an express obligation of fairness. A small amount of info is available from the archives of the consultation - e.g how the indemnity that takes its wording from the Arbitration Act was added following counsel's opinion, so unlike most true "experts" (e.g. expert witnesses) Nominet's panel are protected in the same way that arbiters are from claims in negligence - sort of "have cake and eat it".

Oh I was talking about asking questions that allowed you to compare them with other registries. Are you saying that you think DRS should be arbitration as designated under the act?

It troubles me because Nominet has a big wedge of public money that the public (and industry) are obliged to pay (via agents) to register domains. I think that what it does with that "public" money should be subject to the same scrutiny and contral as the money spent by all the other bodies covered by the EU spending rules. So any contracts worth (cumulitively if over a period of time) a touch under €100K should have been opened up to rigorous open tender throughout the EU.

I think that is a rather strange definition of "public" money. Does that mean you would also define Tesco as spending "public" money?

True - I mean bringing it into "national" ownership. However by turning it into a Patent Office style executive agency, it would not be "nationalisation" in the sense of 70s style British Leyland or other "nationalised" industries who then compete in the market. So yes - if one means "owned by the nation" then I do think .uk should be "nationalised".

That is a choice for the government of the day to make at any time.

Gordon

 

[Beasty]

Oh I was talking about asking questions that allowed you to compare them with other registries. Are you saying that you think DRS should be arbitration as designated under the act?

I think it is a paper-based arbitration - just as as the UDRP is. Use of terms like "expert" do not mean that the function is not arbitarial. However Nominet do not want to be tied by the duties of express fairness etc. imposed by the Arbitration Act - yet want their "experts" to enjoy the same immunity from claims that normally only arbiters enjoy as a matter of course. How and why they came up with this construct would make interesting reading - but one has no access to it.

I think that is a rather strange definition of "public" money. Does that mean you would also define Tesco as spending "public" money?

Hardly. I have a choice of where to buy groceries - there is (though its being investigated by the OFT) at least some level of choice - even if it's largely between the big supermarkets. Nominet is the only place a consumer can buy a .uk domain - just as the Patent Office is the only place they can get a trade mark, patent or registered design; or Companies House is the only place they can register a company. Are you suggesting that these agencies are like Tesco - and should not be open to public scrutiny or be obliged to follow rigorously fair procedures when spending any large amounts of money?

That is a choice for the government of the day to make at any time.

I agree - and so it is beholden on anyone who thinks they should be doing so to lobby them. Doubtless we'll find a highly polished (and costly) Nominet lobbying machine already in place!

 

[Jac]

Hardly. I have a choice of where to buy groceries - there is (though its being investigated by the OFT) at least some level of choice - even if it's largely between the big supermarkets. Nominet is the only place a consumer can buy a .uk domain - just as the Patent Office is the only place they can get a trade mark, patent or registered design; or Companies House is the only place they can register a company. Are you suggesting that these agencies are like Tesco - and should not be open to public scrutiny or be obliged to follow rigorously fair procedures when spending any large amounts of money?

Beasty

For the sake of fair play I feel compelled to point out an anomaly in your argument.

To say that Nominet is the only place a consumer can buy a .uk domain is technically incorrect. You can buy a .uk domain name from the 2,900+ active Nominet members and/or the 3,900 active tag holders. This is where the competition is in .uk domain names; between the members and tag holders; just as the competition in company names is between the agents who offer off the shelf companies and value added services. (Of course, you can save money by doing it yourself with Companies House or Nominet.)

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[grandin]

are you sure?

jac you wrote: (Of course, you can save money by doing it yourself with Companies House or Nominet.)

I say: how do you save money by going direct to nominet. When easyspace were late in paying my renewal fee i got a letter from nominet saying i can renew with them at about ten times the price of easyspace

Lee

 

[rob]

When easyspace were late in paying my renewal fee i got a letter from nominet saying i can renew with them at about ten times the price of easyspace

Easyspace are cheap - I could charge £1000 per name thus Nominet looks cheap.

There are still a few companies who charge well over £100 per .uk name, however that usually is part of general support contracts / other value adding packages etc.

 

[Jac]

jac you wrote:
I say: how do you save money by going direct to nominet. When easyspace were late in paying my renewal fee i got a letter from nominet saying i can renew with them at about ten times the price of easyspace

I meant that Nominet is non-discriminatory (as it should be) and anyone can apply for membership or to be a tag holder. As a tag holder you are privy to the "trade" price given to bona fide members.

PS: It is possible the reminder and £80 + Vat invoice you get from Nominet may cross over with the renewal being done by the tag holder.

Regards
James Conaghan